Good morning, CIPA World.
There was a time when going to the library meant quiet aisles, borrowed books, and the quiet comfort that what you read was your business.
Apparently, it may now also mean a federal lawsuit.
In Kevin Smith v. Midwest Tape, LLC, Slip Copy, 2026 WL 482856 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2026), plaintiffs Kevin Smith and Lyly Tran filed a consumer privacy class action against Midwest Tape, LLC – the operator of Hoopla, a web-based digital library platform used by public libraries across California . Users accessed reading and video materials through hoopladigital.com. What they allegedly did not realize, according to the complaint, was that third-party technologies from Meta Platforms and Google were embedded on the site.
The claim? That those technologies intercepted users’ communications in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act, including Penal Code § 631 .
And just like that, the digital equivalent of checking out a book becomes a wiretap theory.
What makes this case striking is not that it involves pixels. We have seen that story before. Retailers. Media companies. Healthcare portals. But a digital library platform? That shifts the narrative.
Libraries carry a cultural assumption of confidentiality. There is something deeply embedded in public consciousness about the privacy of what we read. Plaintiffs understand that. Framing the alleged interception in the context of borrowed reading and video materials amplifies the perceived sensitivity of the data. It makes the case feel less like advertising infrastructure and more like surveillance.
Legally, however, the theory remains familiar. A website embeds third-party tracking tools. Data allegedly flows to Meta and Google in real time. Plaintiffs characterize that flow as an unlawful interception of communications. Section 631, drafted in 1967 to combat telephone wiretapping, becomes the vehicle for challenging modern web architecture.
The tension is almost cinematic.
CIPA was designed for hidden recording devices attached to phone lines. Today, courts are being asked whether snippets of JavaScript operating in milliseconds qualify as “tapping” or “reading” a communication while it is in transit.
And that is where these cases continue to live or die.
Is the third party truly an independent interceptor? Or is it functioning as a service provider acting on behalf of the website operator? Does the user meaningfully consent by interacting with the platform? Are routine analytics transmissions equivalent to clandestine eavesdropping?
Each new district court decision nudges the doctrine in one direction or the other, but the overarching uncertainty remains.
The Midwest Tape case also reinforces something we are seeing more clearly in 2026: no industry is off limits. It is no longer just e-commerce companies monetizing clicks. If your platform uses embedded third-party tools, even in an educational or public service context — you are potentially inside the CIPA arena.
That should concern in-house counsel far beyond Silicon Valley startups. It reaches municipalities, educational vendors, healthcare providers, subscription platforms, streaming services, anyone operating an interactive website.
There is also a subtle but important evolution happening here. Plaintiffs are no longer simply targeting consumer purchases. They are targeting consumer interactions. The shift from “transaction” to “engagement” broadens the scope dramatically. You do not need to buy anything. You just need to visit.
In that sense, the Midwest Tape litigation is less about a single digital library and more about the boundaries of CIPA itself. Are we comfortable allowing a criminal wiretap statute to regulate standard web analytics? Or are courts going to begin drawing clearer lines between true interception and routine digital functionality?
CIPA World, the symbolism of this one is hard to ignore.
When even your library card becomes a potential wiretap claim, we are no longer talking about fringe litigation. We are talking about a structural shift in how California privacy law is being used.
And until appellate courts provide sharper guidance, that shift is only going to accelerate.
Stay tuned.
CIPAWorld 